From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Mar 2 15:35:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA10181 for chat-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 15:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA10173 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 15:35:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) id SAA00745; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 18:34:53 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199703022334.SAA00745@crh.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: 2.2 Compiler slower than 2.1? (was RSA 56-bit key challenge) To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 18:34:53 -0500 (EST) Cc: jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, scrappy@hub.org, ejs@bfd.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, taob@risc.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199703022332.PAA07875@rah.star-gate.com> from Amancio Hasty at "Mar 2, 97 03:32:29 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > FreeBSD-1.0's gcc used to rock in terms of compilation it was at > least twice as fast as the lastest gcc , and of course it didn't > have any of the Pentium optimizations which may account for its > current slowness -- well I am just giving it the benefit of the > doubt. Someone ought to really look into what the hell is going > on with gcc. So are you going to build a 1.0 binary for us? :) -Crh Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich